A distribution model for Glossina brevipalpis and Glossina austeni in Southern Mozambique, Eswatini and South Africa for enhanced area-wide integrated pest management approaches.

BACKGROUND: Glossina austeni and Glossina brevipalpis (Diptera: Glossinidae) are the sole cyclical vectors of African trypanosomes in South Africa, Eswatini and southern Mozambique. These populations represent the southernmost distribution of tsetse flies on the African continent. Accurate knowledge of infested areas is a prerequisite to develop and implement efficient and cost-effective control strategies, and distribution models may reduce large-scale, extensive entomological surveys that are time consuming and expensive. The objective was to develop a MaxEnt species distribution model and habitat suitability maps for the southern tsetse belt of South Africa, Eswatini and southern Mozambique. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL
FINDINGS: The present study used existing entomological survey data of G. austeni and G. brevipalpis to develop a MaxEnt species distribution model and habitat suitability maps. Distribution models and a checkerboard analysis indicated an overlapping presence of the two species and the most suitable habitat for both species were protected areas and the coastal strip in KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa and Maputo Province, Mozambique. The predicted presence extents, to a small degree, into communal farming areas adjacent to the protected areas and coastline, especially in the Matutuíne District of Mozambique. The quality of the MaxEnt model was assessed using an independent data set and indicated good performance with high predictive power (AUC > 0.80 for both species).
CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The models indicated that cattle density, land surface temperature and protected areas, in relation with vegetation are the main factors contributing to the distribution of the two tsetse species in the area. Changes in the climate, agricultural practices and land-use have had a significant and rapid impact on tsetse abundance in the area. The model predicted low habitat suitability in the Gaza and Inhambane Provinces of Mozambique, i.e., the area north of the Matutuíne District. This might indicate that the southern tsetse population is isolated from the main tsetse belt in the north of Mozambique. The updated distribution models will be useful for planning tsetse and trypanosomosis interventions in the area.

Introduction

Tsetse flies (Diptera: Glossinidae) are considered the sole cyclical vectors of African trypanosomes and are reported to occur in about 10 million km2 in sub-Saharan Africa [1]. The trypanosome parasites cause Human African Trypanosomosis (HAT) or sleeping sickness in humans and African Animal Trypanosomosis (AAT) or nagana in livestock. Both diseases have a substantial negative effect on agricultural development and economic growth in sub-Saharan Africa [2,3]. HAT is a fatal disease if left untreated and, although absent in southern Africa, occurs regularly in some regions of sub-Saharan Africa with 70 million people at risk of becoming infected in 36 countries [4].

Tsetse flies are restricted to sub-Saharan Africa [5] and they have been sampled as far south as the north-eastern parts of KwaZulu-Natal Province (KZN) of South Africa (Latitude S28°31’13.44”). This southern population extends into the neighbouring Maputo Province (MP) of Mozambique [6-11]. Of the 31 described tsetse fly species and subspecies, only two species are found as far south as South Africa, i.e., Glossina brevipalpis Newstead belonging to the Fusca (forest) species group and Glossina austeni Newstead belonging to the Morsitans (savannah) species group [1,7,8].

In addition to several species of wildlife, both species feed on cattle [5] and are involved in the transmission of two pathogenic protozoa, Trypanosoma congolense and Trypanosoma vivax [12-14] that cause the debilitating disease AAT in livestock. T. congolense is the most abundant species in South Africa [13] and limited vector competence studies indicated that G. austeni was the more competent vector for T. congolense in this area [14,15].

Tsetse infested areas in KZN are mainly used for communal farming and inhabited by 426 000 humans, 130 000 small ruminants and 360 000 cattle [16]. Livestock production and agricultural development is severely hindered by these flies as vectors of trypanosomes which causes considerable stress to the farmers, not only in KZN but in the entire distribution area of the two species [14]. The G. brevipalpis belt extends from Ethiopia in north-eastern Africa southwards to Somalia, Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda, Burundi and Tanzania [10]. In southern Africa the presence of G. brevipalpis extends from Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique to the north-eastern parts of KZN [5]. G. austeni is found in East Africa from Somalia in the north, extending southwards into Kenya, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Eswatini, Mozambique and the north-eastern parts of KZN [5,10]. G. austeni was also present on Unguja Island of Zanzibar, Tanzania, but the population was eradicated in 1997, after implementing an area-wide integrated pest management (AW-IPM) campaign that included the sterile insect technique (SIT) [17].

The most southern distribution of these two species is shared by Mozambique (Matutuíne District), Eswatini (Mlawula Nature Reserve) and South Africa (north-eastern KZN). Localised surveys and available distribution prediction models for South Africa showed that, on a micro-ecological scale, G. brevipalpis and G. austeni are confined to pockets of dense vegetation in north-eastern KZN [18-21]. This apparent patchy distribution, in addition to possible low migration potential [7,18], may have resulted in the development of localised genetically isolated population pockets [22]. Preliminary studies, using molecular and phenetic (geometric morphometrics) markers, however, suggested an absence of significant barriers to gene flow within the pockets of this southern population [23]. These data provided evidence that G. brevipalpis and G. austeni populations in southern Mozambique, Eswatini and South Africa can be considered homogenous and that an eradication strategy that is limited to one country will not be sustainable because of potential reinvasion from uncontrolled neighbouring areas [23]. However, this southern tsetse population might be geographically isolated from the main tsetse belt that starts approximately 500 km north of Matutuíne District, south of the Save River in central Mozambique [6-9,11,24]. If confirmed, this will offer an opportunity to sustainably create a tsetse-free zone in southern Africa.

The current strategy in South Africa to manage nagana relies on long-term vector suppression using live-bait technologies and the ad hoc treatment of cattle with trypanocidal drugs. For the live bait technology, the chemical amitraz (C19H23N3) that has normally been used in the existing network of dipping tanks for the management of tick-borne diseases, was replaced with a wide-spectrum insecticide, i.e., the pyrethroid cyhalothrin (C23H19ClF3NO3) that is more effective against dipteran flies [25]. This cattle-dipping regime for suppressing the tsetse populations has been adopted since 2015 (personal communication Dr. L. Ntantiso, Department of Agriculture, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa). Although pyrethroids as a dipping agent are effective for the management of both ticks and tsetse flies [26], ticks can develop pyrethroid resistance with a reduction in its efficiency as an acaricide as previously reported in the area [26,27]. This livestock dipping strategy can also only be effective if a large proportion of the tsetse population feeds on domestic rather than wild animals [28]. Managing AAT with pyrethroids in dipping tanks can therefore only be a temporary solution at best. The establishment of a tsetse-free zone in southern Africa would be a more sustainable solution to the nagana problem. A potential sustainable solution to eradicate G. brevipalpis and G. austeni from north-eastern KZN was proposed in 2007 [7] and was based on an AW-IPM strategy that includes an SIT component. In the absence of significant barriers to gene flow between the populations of MP, Eswatini, and KZN [23], the proposed strategy [7] will have to be adapted to target sequentially the populations in all three countries.

Determining the precise and potential geographic distribution and abundance of the targeted tsetse population will be vital for the success of an AW-IPM strategy. The size of the area that needs to be treated will directly affect the outcome, sustainability and cost of any control campaign. Because of the logistical and funding constraints involved in implementing surveys over such a large rural area that extends over three countries, models that predict the distribution, presence and even abundance of the tsetse populations would facilitate the development and implementation of these surveys and make them much more focussed and cost-effective [29].

The first probability of presence model developed for South Africa was based on tsetse fly sampling data collected with sticky XT traps between 1993 and 1999 [19,30]. This model incorporated climate and environmental variables and predicted a more extensive geographical distribution for both G. brevipalpis and G. austeni than was indicated by the sticky trap data [19], suggesting that the model may have overestimated the distribution [30]. Although this model was updated and refined by including data from tsetse sampled with the more effective H-trap between 2005 and 2007, there were still areas where the predicted probability of presence could be improved. Incorporating data on cattle density, human population, agricultural intensity and detailed vegetation biomes were suggested to improve model fit [20]. Furthermore, the earlier models did not include southern Mozambique and Eswatini. The objective of the study was to develop a MaxEnt species distribution model and habitat suitability maps for the southern tsetse belt of South Africa, southern Mozambique and Eswatini using available entomological survey data of G. austeni and G. brevipalpis. The updated models may be able to predict to what extent changes in land use and agricultural practises may potentially influence tsetse abundance and the occurrence of AAT.

Materials and methods

Study area

In South Africa the envisaged tsetse infested area (16 000 km2) stretches from around 10 km south of the Mfolozi River in the south, for approximately 190 km, to the border of Mozambique in the north, and from the Indian Ocean coast in the east for 80 km to the Hluhluwe-iMfolozi Park in the west (Fig 1) [7,8]. The infested area extends into the Matutuine District (8 500 km2) (MP) of Mozambique, the northern limit being the Boane and Namaacha Districts of Mozambique [6,11]. In the east, it borders with the Indian Ocean and in the west with Eswatini. In Eswatini, the Mlawula Nature Reserve was surveyed. The reserve is located west of the Lebombo Mountains (elevation 776 m), an 800 km-long narrow range of mountains that stretch from Hluhluwe in KZN in the south to Punda Maria in the Limpopo Province in South Africa in the north parallel with the Mozambique border.

Fig 1

Apparent density of Glossina austeni and Glossina brevipalpis collected between 2009 and 2019 from Maputo Province (MP), Mozambique, Eswatini and north-eastern KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa (https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/PA7U7L).

Farming systems are predominantly subsistence farming with numerous communal farms interspersed with several protected areas consisting of provincial and private game parks and reserves. This includes the iSimangaliso Wetland Park which was listed as South Africa’s first World Heritage Site in December 1999. These areas contain a wide variety of game animals consisting of large numbers of bigger mammals, small primates, rodents as well as birds that are potential hosts for tsetse. The South African target area contains several state forests, mostly pine and eucalyptus plantations, and sugarcane farms.

The area has a large range of land cover relevant to the presence or absence of G. brevipalpis and G. austeni such as coastal forests, savannah and agricultural areas. The climate is subtropical, except the mountainous “highveld” area in Eswatini that has a temperate climate.

Tsetse data collection

South Africa

Data obtained from routine entomological surveys using H-traps, carried out between April and May 2012, April and June 2015, March 2016 and February 2017 and October 2018 and June 2019, were used for model development (Fig 1). Trapping sites were selected in areas of known tsetse presence or with a high probability of tsetse presence as predicted by a previous presence model [19,30]. To enhance the trapping of G. brevipalpis, each trap was baited with the odours 1-octen-3-ol and 4-methylphenol at a 1:8 ratio and released at 4.4 mg/h and 7.6 mg/h, respectively [31]. The chemicals were dispensed from seven heat-sealed sachets (7 cm x 9 cm) made of low-density polyethylene sleeves (wall thickness 150 μm) placed near the entrance of each trap. A 300 mL brown glass bottle with a 6 mm hole in the lid dispensed acetone at a rate of ca. 350 mg/h and was placed close to the trap [18,21]. In total 160 H-traps were deployed for a minimum of 19 and a maximum of 244 trapping days. Considering the number of traps deployed per site and the number of trapping days it is envisaged that the influence on tsetse densities was minimal. Flies were collected from the traps and the traps serviced (e.g., clearing of vegetation, odour replacement, replace the traps when the colours are faded) every 14 days. The traps contained two plastic bottles for fly collection. The bottles contained a 20% ethanol to which an antiseptic, Savlon (Johnson & Johnson (Pty) Ltd., Rattray Road, East London, South Africa) was added to preserve the sampled flies as well as to prevent ant and spider predation. The collected tsetse flies were identified morphologically to species level and sexed. The number of each species collected over this period was counted and results expressed as apparent density (AD), i.e., the number of flies per trap per day.

Mozambique

In the Matutuíne District (MP) of Mozambique, entomological surveys were carried out annually between 2009 to 2013 and in June-July 2019 (Fig 1). Tsetse flies were sampled with 283 odour-baited H-traps following the protocol as described above for South Africa, with the exception that the traps were deployed for a minimum of three days and a maximum of 14 days.

Eswatini

In Eswatini collections were made in the Mlawula Nature Reserve from April 2019 to June 2019 with 10 odour-baited H-traps (Fig 1). The Mlawula Nature Reserve was the only area were tsetse flies were trapped in a country-wide survey carried out from 12 April to 7 May 2008 [24]. The sampling protocol was the same as that used in South Africa and Mozambique.

Data analysis

Tsetse occurrence and density

The data collected during these independent entomological surveys, were correlated with vegetation classes developed for the area and incorporated in models to predict suitable habitat for potential tsetse distribution. The statistical software R version 3.6.2. using RStudio Desktop version 1.2.5033 [32] was used for data analysis. A co-occurrence analysis, consisting of a binary presence-absence matrix, was carried out to assess if the distribution of G. austeni and G. brevipalpis throughout the study area was segregated, aggregated or random. A Checkerboard score (C-score) [28] that is measuring aggregation or segregation intensity (checkerboardness) was calculated. To evaluate the tsetse relative abundance, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the mean tsetse fly AD between sites. The data were not normally distributed and nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis tests were used as a post test. Additionally, Dunn’s multiple comparison tests were used where P value < 0.05.

Spatial filtering and generation of pseudo-absence

All datasets were spatially filtered to reduce the spatial correlation in the modelling process. One record was kept per pixel (500 m) and any absence data within a buffer of 2 km around a presence data was removed from the analysis. A probabilistic model was applied to remove non-significant absence from the analysis (5% level) [33,34]. Absence data were kept for validation and some background (pseudo-absence) was generated randomly in the grid according to the kernel based on sampling effort. While higher sampling effort increases the pseudo-absence generated, areas less sampled will have less. The kernel was built using spatial point pattern analysis incorporating all available trap information from the study area. Subsequently, one pseudo-absence per raster cell (approx. 500 m x 500 m) was selected. Finally, all pseudo-absences into a 2 km radius buffer around presence data were removed, taking into consideration the average flight range of these species. To reduce the sampling bias these pseudo-absence data were generated by taking into account the environment and the range of the efficiency of the H-traps to sample both species. A model based on a multidimensional nonparametric kernel [35] was developed in areas of high sampling effort to correct for sampling bias. The models were fitted with G. austeni and G. brevipalpis presence data collected with H-traps from the three countries. Additionally, the models were validated using presence and absence data for both species.

Remote sensing data

Time series of high spatial resolution (100 m to 1000 m) remote sensing data were downloaded, cleaned and summarized to build relevant covariates. Ten years of Moderate-resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) products (January 2010 to December 2019) were used.

A detailed vegetation classification map of the tsetse distribution area in South Africa, Eswatini and southern Mozambique was derived from four Landsat 8 images (resolution 30*30m, June to July 2013) and field surveys conducted in July 2013. The field records comprised 1092 photographs taken at locations within the known tsetse distribution area of South Africa, Eswatini and southern Mozambique. The photographs were used to identify 11 main types of vegetation based on the international nomenclature that were considered relevant for the presence or absence of G. brevipalpis and G. austeni (Fig 2), i.e., savannah woodland, herbaceous savannah, shrub savannah, dense dry forest, gallery forest, tree plantations, crops (agricultural areas), urban areas, swamps, water bodies and bare ground were the mainland-cover classes. MODIS products and indices were selected to capture the complexity of tsetse habitat preference, in particular, thermal and vegetation indices. MODIS products were acquired from the NASA Earth Observing System data server, the human population density layer from the Worldpop project [34], cattle density from the FAO Database [36], FAO livestock gridded of the world project [37], and layers of protected areas from the World Database on Protected Areas [38].

Fig 2

Vegetation classes map with Glossina austeni and Glossina brevipalpis presence and absence collected between 2009 and 2019 (https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/PA7U7L).

For each variable, data were pre-processed and cleaned by re-interpolating the data at a spatial resolution of 500 m using the nearest neighbour method. A MODIS QA (pixel quality) mask was applied to remove poor quality pixels. Thermal data were filtered using the boxplot algorithm to reduce the effect of outliers [39]. Summary statistics such as mean, maximum, minimum and range were computed for the variables Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), Middle Infra-Red (MIR), Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI), Tree Cover (treecov), Day Land Surface Temperatures (DLST) and Night Land Surface Temperatures (NLST) (Table 1).

Table 1

Variables derived from remote sensing data used in the model.

Variable Name		Type	Product	Spatial Resolution (m)	Temporal Resolution (days)	Source
Normalized Difference Vegetation Index	NDVI	Vegetation	MOD13A1/MYD13A1	500 x 500	16	MODIS
Middle Infra-Red	MIR	Vegetation	MOD13A1/MYD13A1	500 x 500	16	MODIS
Enhanced Vegetation Index	EVI	Vegetation	MOD13A1/MYD13A1	500 x 500	16	MODIS
Tree cover	treecov	Vegetation	MOD44B	250 x 250	365	MODIS
Day land surface temperatures	DLST	Thermal	MOD11A2/MYD11A2	1000 x 1000	8	MODIS
Night Land surface temperatures	NLST	Thermal	MOD13A2/MYD11A2	1000 x 1000	8	MODIS
Human Population density	POP			100 x 100		WorldPop
Cattle Density	Cattle		Livestock Gridded of the World	1000 x 1000		FAO
Slope	Slope	Topographic		500 x 500		SRTM
Aspect	Aspect	Topographic		500 x 500		SRTM

Model selection and validation

Ecological Niche Factor Analysis (ENFA), a variant of factor analysis, was used to explore and model species ecological niche [40]. The environmental space used by the species was compared with the available environmental space using two indicators i.e., marginality and specialization. Marginality was used to measure niche central position. It captures the dimension in the ecological space in which the average conditions where the species accrues differs from the global conditions. A large marginality value implies that the conditions where the species was found were “far” from the global environmental conditions. In contrast, specialization measures the spread and usage of the ecological space along dimensions of niche use. The higher this value, the narrower the space used by the species. Consequently, the species niche can be summarized by an index for marginality and specialization and represented on a factor map within the biplot framework.

The Maximum Entropy ecological niche model (MaxEnt), one of most common species distribution models [41], was used to predict the potential distribution of the two species. It uses a machine learning method based on the information theory concept of maximum entropy [42]. MaxEnt fits a species distribution by contrasting the environmental condition where the species is present, and the environment characterized by some pseudo-absence data also called background. The logistic output from this method is a suitability index that ranges between 0 (low suitable habitat) and 1 (high suitable habitat). This output was used to create suitability maps for both species.

Predictors used in these models were chosen according to the ecology of the two species involved. Twenty-four bioclimatic variables based on remote sensing data were built to model the distribution of these two species. For each of the remote sensing derived index, we computed some measures of position (mean, min, max) and some measures of spread (range, coefficient of variability). Multiple models were fitted varying the background of the model to assess the effect of pseudo-absence and use model averaging [43]. The effect of pseudo-absences was assessed by repeating the process to generate them several times and monitor variability and stability in model quality metrics. Furthermore, the predictive quality of the different MaxEnt models was assessed with a subset of the entomological survey data that was excluded from the analysis. Uncertainty was measured using the coefficient of variation from the predictions. The main metric used to check predictive power of the different models was the Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC). A likelihood-based metrics was also analysed to assess the importance and contribution of each variable.

Based on the predictive quality of the developed MaxEnt models, and keeping the degree of uncertainty in mind, the potential distribution of the two species was determined by extrapolation of the model to adjoining areas outside the collection limits.

Results

Tsetse apparent density and vegetation classification

The 485 H-traps deployed in 45 sites in KZN, Eswatini and MP, collected 61 316 G. brevipalpis (AD = 4.32 flies/trap/day) and 1378 G. austeni (AD = 0.10 flies/trap/day) between August 2009 and June 2019 (Fig 1). While both species were collected in KZN and MP, only G. austeni was trapped in Eswatini. The two species had strongly aggregated distributions in the entire study area (C-sore = 0.014, R < 0.001) (Fig 1).

The mean AD (4.10 ± 6.4) of G. brevipalpis in KZN was significantly higher (P < 0.01) than that (2.14 ± 5.4) in MP. However, the lower mean AD (0.08 ± 0.2) of G. austeni in KZN was not significantly different from that (0.90 ± 6.9) of MP. The mean AD of G. austeni collected in Eswatini was 0.34 ± 0.2.

In KZN, G. brevipalpis was most abundant in dense dry forest vegetation ( AD of 10.47 ± 7.7) (Figs 1 and 2) followed by shrub savannah ( AD of 6.46 ± 7.9) and savannah woodland ( AD of 5.37 ± 7.3). The lowest population densities of G. brevipalpis were found in the swamp areas ( AD of 1.26 ± 0.03). In MP, G. brevipalpis was most abundant in shrub savannah ( AD of 5.70 ± 6.7) followed by savannah woodland ( AD of 4.0 ± 9.0), dense dry forest ( AD of 3.71 ± 5.9) and swamp areas ( AD of 3.10 ± 5.19). Overall, from the entire collection area, significantly (P < 0.01) more G. brevipalpis were collected from dense dry forest ( AD of 6.39 ± 7.4) as compared with shrub savannah ( AD of 5.60 ± 7.1), savannah woodland ( AD of 4.64 ± 8.3), swamp ( AD of 2.70 ± 4.6) and herbaceous savannah ( AD of 2.20 ± 2.3).

In KZN, most G. austeni were sampled in savannah woodland ( AD of 0.20 ± 0.3), followed by dense dry forest ( AD of 0.15 ± 0.2), shrub savannah ( AD of 0.03 ± 0.1) and herbaceous savannah ( AD of 0.004 ± 0.01) (Figs 1 and 2). This species was not sampled in the swamp areas. In MP, the highest population densities of G. austeni were found in dense dry forest ( AD of 3.24 ± 15.2) followed by savannah woodland ( AD of 1.41 ± 4.7), shrub savannah ( AD of 0.57 ± 1.9), herbaceous savannah ( AD of 0.2 ±0.4) and the swamp areas ( AD of 0.05 ± 0.1). In Eswatini, G. austeni was only sampled in savannah woodland areas with a mean AD of 0.34 ± 0.2.

Considering the entire collection area, similar to G. brevipalpis, significantly (P < 0.01) more G. austeni were collected in dense dry forest ( AD of 2.02 ± 11.9) as compared with savannah woodland ( AD of 0.87 ± 3.6), shrub savannah ( AD of 0.36 ± 1.5), herbaceous savannah ( AD of 0.11 ± 0.3) and swamp areas ( AD of 0.04 ± 0.1).

In KZN and MP, the relative abundance of both species was significantly (P < 0.01) greater in protected areas as compared with the areas surrounding these protected areas, i.e., for G. austeni a mean AD of 0.13 ± 0.2 was observed inside protected areas in KZN versus a mean AD of 0.02 ± 0.2 outside, and in MP a mean AD of 1.7 ± 9.6 inside versus a mean AD of 0.005 ± 0.03 outside (Fig 1). The mean ADs of both species decreased significantly (P < 0.01) with distance from a protected area in both countries. The mean AD of G. austeni collected in a 5 km buffer zone around the protected areas were 0.03 ± 0.2 and 0.01 ± 0.1 in KZN and MP, respectively. Beyond this 5 km buffer zone, the mean AD (0.0003 ± 0.001) of G. austeni collected in KZN was ten times lower as compared with the mean AD (0.003 ± 0.01) in MP. The trend was similar for G. brevipalpis with mean AD’s of 1.01 ± 1.8 in KZN and 0.65 ± 1.3 in MP within the 5 km buffer zone around the protected areas and a reduction further away, i.e., 0.67 ± 1.9 in KZN and 0.02 ± 0.1 in MP.

Maximum entropy ecological niche model (MaxEnt)

Results of the ENFA showed that G. austeni occurrence was positively associated with vegetation indices (EVI range (5.1%) and tree cover mean (2.2%)) as well as presence of protected areas (Fig 3). The same positive association with vegetation indices and presence of protected areas was observed for G. brevipalpis (Fig 3). Human population and cattle densities and most of the temperature indices showed a negative association with occurrence of both species, except the minimum night land surface temperature which was positively correlated with occurrence of G. brevipalpis. Slope and aspect were positively related to G. brevipalpis presence but negatively with G. austeni. Mean night land surface temperature influenced the habitat for the two species. Minimum MIR for G. austeni and mean MIR for G. brevipalpis accounted for most of the variance and fell outside the cloud of average conditions available in the study area (Fig 3).

Fig 3

The ecological niche factor analysis plan.

Light grey polygon shows the overall environmental conditions available in the study area, dark grey polygon shows environmental conditions where Glossina austeni and Glossina brevipalpis were observed, and the white circles corresponds to the barycentre of its distribution.

For G. austeni, the variable cattle density contributed 24.8% towards model fitting, followed by the range of day land surface temperatures (16.7%) and presence of protected areas (13.9%). For G. brevipalpis, the variable cattle density contributed 42.6% towards model fitting, followed by mean night land surface temperature (12.9%) and presence of protected areas (8.9%) (Fig 4).

Fig 4

Contribution of variables to the suitability index by decreasing importance for Glossina austeni and Glossina brevipalpis.

The 95% confidence interval is indicated in red and individual values in grey.

For the Maxent models the mean AUC as assessed with the independent data was 0.88 (range 0.87 to 0.89) and 0.84 (range 0.81 to 0.85) for G. austeni and G. brevipalpis, respectively (Fig 5). The uncertainty grid for the habitat suitability index model (Mass analyses) indicated that the uncertainty in the predictions was low, except in areas west of the known tsetse infested zone (S1 Fig). When the model was extended northwards to the Gaza and Inhambane Provinces of Mozambique the uncertainty increased. However, the prediction values along the coastline in the Inhambane Province retained relative high certainty. The distribution of the two species was similar with high suitability areas in and along the protected areas in all three countries and the coastal areas of north-eastern KZN and MP.

Fig 5

Area under the curve for the average MaxEnt model (in red) and the 10 sub models (in grey) for Glossina austeni and Glossina brevipalpis.

Suitable habitat for G. austeni was predicted mainly along the coastline and inside protected areas of north-eastern KZN and MP (Fig 6). The predicted suitable habitat extended to a small degree into the communal farming areas close to the protected areas and coastline. In Eswatini the suitable predicated habitat was also linked to protected areas along the eastern border of Mozambique. There was also a small suitable area in the central part of Eswatini.

Fig 6

The mean habitat suitability index predicted by a MaxEnt model for Glossina austeni and Glossina brevipalpis for Maputo Province (MP), Mozambique, Eswatini and north-eastern KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa (https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/PA7U7L).

Overall G. brevipalpis displayed a wider distribution than G. austeni (Fig 1). The suitable habitat for G. brevipalpis was highly linked to protected areas but extended to a greater degree into adjoining communal cattle farming areas as compared with G. austeni. This extension was more pronounced in the MP than in KZN. Suitable habitat for G. brevipalpis was also predicted over a narrow strip at the border between Eswatini and Mozambique, and, like G. austeni, in the central part of Eswatini, but to a larger extent. In north-eastern KZN, a suitable band was predicted in the northern part in the communal farming area along the coast and border of the iSimangaliso Wetland Park. The largest area of predicted suitable habitat for G. brevipalpis in the communal farming area was west and south of Hluhluwe-imfolozi Park. The area of high probability for G. brevipalpis extended south along the coast far beyond its known historical distribution limits.

The model was extended for both species (Fig 7) to include the Gaza and Inhambane Provinces of Mozambique. The model indicated that large parts of this area were unsuitable for both species, but the habitat was more suitable for G. brevipalpis than for G. austeni. Areas of high suitability were mostly found along the coast and in a small area of the Zinave National Park close to the Save River.

Fig 7

Extended mean habitat suitability index predicted by a MaxEnt model for Glossina austeni and Glossina brevipalpis in Mozambique, Eswatini and South Africa (https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/PA7U7L).

Discussion

A sound understanding of the potential distribution of targeted tsetse fly species will be essential for the successful implementation of any AW-IPM programme that include an SIT component, e.g., it will establish the area over which sterilized males need to be released in programmes. The development of habitat suitability maps, and an assessment of the factors that regulate the presence or absence of the targeted species, will therefore be advantageous, if not essential, to ensure that these programmes will be efficient and cost-effective. Reliable prediction maps will enable more efficient planning of entomological surveys and selection of appropriate trapping sites. The present study used existing entomological survey data to develop habitat suitability maps for G. austeni and G. brevipalpis using statistical methods whilst incorporating what is known of the ecology of both species, e.g., host and habitat preferences. The methodology followed to develop these prediction maps was similar to the one used in the AW eradication programme of Glossina palpalis gambiensis Vanderplank in the Niayes of Senegal [29,41]. The MaxEnt approach was used as previous studies in West Africa [41] indicated that it better predicted suitable landscapes and tsetse presence as compared with a presence-absence regularized logistic regression model. The MaxEnt model was develop based on ADs as obtained with odour baited H-traps for both species. Although the H-trap was specifically developed for the collection of these species [44] the differential efficacy of this trap remains unknown for the two species. In order to develop better informed and robust models, systematic sampling within study area is still the most efficient way to improve this model. In agreement with previous entomological surveys in the affected area in north-eastern KZN, climate, vegetation and presence of protected areas and cattle were the key regulators that determined the presence and abundance of G. brevipalpis and G. austeni [8,16,18,21].

Previous surveys and distribution prediction models showed that the G. austeni and G. brevipalpis populations were, on a micro-ecological scale, mainly confined to pockets of dense vegetation in north-eastern KZN [18,19,21,30]. A strong relationship between tsetse relative abundance and vegetation type was observed in the current study. High relative abundance of G. austeni and G. brevipalpis was strongly associated with savannah woodland and dense dry forests, respectively. Low relative abundance of G. austeni and G. brevipalpis was associated with swamp and crop areas, respectively. This association was evidenced by the positive association between tree cover and predicted suitability for both species. These observations highlight the regulatory role that the presence of suitable vegetation may play in predicting the presence or absence of these two tsetse fly species in an area and the success of bush clearing as an earlier method for tsetse control [45].

The model predicted suitable habitat for both species along the coast of north-eastern KZN and MP (Fig 6). Previous studies conducted in north-eastern KZN suggested a relationship between the relative abundance of the tsetse populations and the range of temperature variation [8]. In accordance with model predications the relative abundance of both species was higher at coastal sites compared to sites in the interior, and this can be related to the variation in the average temperature and relative humidity, which are less pronounced at the coast as compared with the interior. The range in day land surface temperatures contributed as much as 16.7% towards model fitting for G. austeni. For G. brevipalpis the contribution of the range in day land surface temperature (1.6%) was of less importance than the mean night land surface temperatures (12.9%). This relationship was also reflected in the prediction model, as there was a negative association between probability of presence and an increase in the range of day surface temperatures.

The model indicated that the predicted presence of both species is associated with the presence of protected game areas in all three countries. Protected areas contributed 13.9% and 8.9% towards model fitting for G. austeni and G. brevipalpis, respectively. These protected areas harbour the preferred hosts of G. brevipalpis such as hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibious), African elephant (Loxodonta africana) and African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) as well as small game animals such as bush pig (Potamochoerus larvatus) and duikers (Sylvicapra species) that are the preferred hosts of G. austeni [5,46,47]. In general, these protected areas are characterized by denser vegetation and lusher tree cover as compared to the communal farming areas.

Notwithstanding the apparent host preferences of these two species, both will feed on cattle [5] and cattle will probably be able to sustain tsetse populations in the absence of game in areas with suitable vegetation and climatic conditions. In the current study, cattle density contributed the highest percentage towards model fitting for both G. austeni and G. brevipalpis. For both species, cattle densities, irrespective of suitable habitat, showed a negative association with fly occurrence. This apparent contradictive observation may be related to cattle being used as live bait for tsetse control in north-eastern KZN. In the past the existing extensive dipping network, that was established mainly for tick control, was modified after an outbreak of nagana to include tsetse fly control by replacing the acaricide dipping agent with an insecticide [26,27]. Once the outbreak was under control the dipping agent was changed back to the acaricide to prevent ticks from developing insecticide resistance. The current live-bait control program in north-eastern KZN started in 2015 (personal communication Dr. L. Ntantiso, KZN Department of Agriculture and Rural Development) and the impact of this control method on tsetse abundance is reflected by the predicted low suitability at diptanks in the communal farming areas where control is currently implemented.

The current control strategy in north-eastern KZN may have facilitated the creation of tsetse refuges in the protected areas. The perceived positive relationship between protected areas and tsetse occurrence and relative abundance were confirmed by the MaxEnt model. And this emphasizes a strong reinvasion potential from the uncontrolled protected areas into the communal farming areas. Over the last decade game farms, private nature reserves and other forms of wildlife-oriented land use, have increasingly become prominent features in KZN [48]. This expansion of protected areas combined with the absence or at least a general reluctance to suppress tsetse populations in these protected areas [49], increases the probability of migration into the farming areas with the associated constant threat of nagana transmission to livestock. This threat is exacerbated by the presence of buffalo and other wildlife hosts that are considered a reservoir host of nagana in some of these protected areas [12].

Previous probability of presence models of G. austeni and G. brevipalpis [20] looked at the estimated area covered by each species in north-eastern KZN at three probability threshold cut-offs, P > 0.5, P > 0.25 and P > 0.125. The total potentially infested area increased two-fold when the threshold was decreased from P > 0.5 to P > 0.125, from 5600 km2 to 11 750 km2 [20]. The current developed model included cattle density, human population, agricultural intensity and detailed vegetation biomes and the prediction area was extended to include Eswatini and southern Mozambique. The estimated area covered by both species at a probability threshold of P > 0.5 was 1700 km2, 57.4 km2 and 3901 km2 for north-eastern KZN, Eswatini and MP, respectively. Therefore, the current model predicted a smaller tsetse fly-infested area than previous models. The reason for this is not clear but it can be speculated that this may be due to model refinement, changes in the habitat (e.g., bush clearing for agricultural purposes) as well as the apparent success of the current tsetse control actions in the area. Considering the sensitivity of tsetse to environmental factors this can even be indictive of the effects of climate change in the area. A more intensive study will be needed to pinpoint the exact reason for the predicted smaller tsetse fly-infested area.

The generated prediction model has been expanded to include the Gaza and Inhambane Provinces in Mozambique, an area suspected to be free of tsetse following a reduction in cattle and wildlife numbers due to human settlement and population expansion. This assumed tsetse-free area extends northwards for approximately 500 km from the northern part of the Matutuine tsetse belt up to the great Central and North tsetse belts that start at the Save River [9,11]. In agreement with historical data [10] and in view of a reduction in cattle and wild host populations in the area, the present model predicted very few areas with suitable habitat in the Gaza and Inhambane provinces of Mozambique (Fig 7). Suitable areas, with a low habitat suitability index, for G. brevipalpis (<0.6) and G. austeni (<0.2) were restricted to the coast (Fig 7). Factors that limit the presence of tsetse flies in the area may be the lack of suitable vegetation combined with a greater variation in temperature range in the interior. Historical collection data from 1984 for G. austeni, indicated that they were present 60 km west of Maputo and found to be present in the Androstachys forests [50,51].

The exact distribution of G. austeni and G. brevipalpis in Mozambique is not known, but it is suspected to be discontinuous due to natural barriers and land use changes. No tsetse control programmes have been implemented since the late 1960s and only limited surveys have been implemented in the last 20 years [6,9,11,52]. This emphasises the importance of the developed MaxEnt model as it provides indications of the most suitable areas that can be prioritised for the deployment of traps during surveys. This will significantly reduce time and cost of future surveys in this area.

Assessment of the MaxEnt model quality using an independent data set attained good performance with a high predictive power (AUC > 0.80 for both species). The available trap data however only partly validated this prediction model, as the present model seems to indicate a potential wider distribution of the two tsetse species as compared to the survey data. This underpins the importance of these models as tools not only for the planning of the surveys and the monitoring activities, but also for the suppression and later sterile male release activities.

The factors that contributed or shaped the distribution of G. austeni and G. brevipalpis as revealed by the present prediction model, indicated that changes in the climate, agricultural practises and land use can have a significant and rapid impact on tsetse presence/absence and abundance. The current trypanosomosis control strategy in South Africa (dipping with insecticides) can only be effective if a large proportion of the tsetse populations feed on cattle [28]. The observed trend in increased wildlife areas in KZN will lead to a decrease in the proportion of tsetse flies taking a blood meal from treated cattle. To manage trypanosomosis it will be crucial to supersede the current South African control strategy of using cattle as live baits with a more sustainable AW-IPM strategy. In 2007, an AW-IPM strategy that include an SIT component was proposed to establish a tsetse fly free South Africa [7]. The proposed AW-IPM strategy suggested the division of the infested area into four zones from south to north with the successive implementation of four phases (pre-suppression, suppression, SIT and post-eradication) in each zone following the rolling carpet principle [7]. In respecting the principles of an AW-IPM approach, the control effort should be directed against the entire insect population, and therefore, the proposed AW-IPM strategy of 2007 should be modified to include the tsetse populations from southern Mozambique and Eswatini.

Uncertainty grid for the habitat suitability index model for Glossina austeni and Glossina brevipalpis (https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/PA7U7L).

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

26 Jul 2021

Dear Dr De Beer,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "A distribution model for Glossina brevipalpis and Glossina austeni in Southern Mozambique, Eswatini and South Africa for enhanced area-wide integrated pest management approaches" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts.

Thank you again for your submission. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Marc Choisy

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Anthony Papenfuss

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: The methods are clearly indicated and the results reflect this.

Reviewer #2: There is insufficient detail provided on a number of aspects of the methodology.

- The objective of the study should be stated more clearly at the end of the introduction.

Study site descriptions and tsetse data collection section:

- Have any of these data been published before? Reference if so.

- How were the locations of tsetse trapping sites chosen given this is important for MaxEnt to produce robust results?

- Line 196-197 Does this mean that some traps were in the same location for 2313 days? Did this affect trap catches, i.e. you may expect to see a decline in population over time?

- It isn’t stated what type of data were collected on the tsetse trapped. Presumably they were identified morphologically, sexed and counted?

Analyses:

- Line 228 ‘ANOVA was used to differentiate between the mean tsetse fly AD’. Do you mean it was used to compare AD between different locations? How were the confidence intervals calculated on the mean ADs?

- Line 229 Apparent density needs to be defined, and it should be explained how it was calculated

- From line 233 The process for generating pseudoabsences isn’t very clear. How exactly were they generated and how many were used?

- From line 233 How were repeat samples from the same location used in the analysis? The filter process isn’t explained very clearly – were repeat measures subsumed into a single presence point by this filtering? Was the season of tsetse collection considered in the analysis?

- Line 253 – Field surveys are mentioned here but not described. What field data were collected and how were the data used?

- Line 302 What exactly is meant by ‘to assess the effect of pseudo-absence’

- Line 303 Two independent datasets are mentioned here but not described. In the abstract one independent dataset is mentioned. Details of these datasets should be included.

- The method used to measure uncertainty is not described.

Reviewer #3: yes to all questions

--------------------

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: The results are adequately presented and all figures are also of sufficient quality.

Reviewer #2: Mostly the results are clearly described although some things had not been included in the methods. Figures are clear and nicely presented.

Line 359-362 This finding regarding which factors influence distribution is obviously important. Whilst it is clearly stated here that human and cattle density have a negative association with occurrence, in other places e.g. line 440, 477, abstract, it isn’t made clear that it is a negative relationship.

Lines 417-421 Is extrapolating beyond the limits of data collection justified? This part should also be described in the methods.

Reviewer #3: yes to all

--------------------

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: The results are also adequately discussed.

Reviewer #2: In general the relevance of the findings is discussed and mostly valid conclusions are reached. The limitations of the approach chosen are not addressed sufficiently.

Specific comments:

- Line 436 ‘whilst incorporating the ecology of both species’ I’m not convinced this approach does incorporate the ecology – remove or be more specific

- Line 440 should say presence of cattle, not presence of host animals, since you didn’t assess wildlife hosts.

- Lines 476-486 The logic isn’t totally clear here but I think you are suggesting that the negative relationship between cattle density and tsetse presence is most likely due to dipping of cattle in farming areas. Whilst I agree it is plausible, how can you differentiate this hypothesis from there being less appropriate tsetse habitat in farming areas?

- Line 496 It would be more accurate to say the presence of buffalo and other wildlife hosts, since there are many species that can carry T. congolense and/or T. vivax.

Reviewer #3: yes to all

--------------------

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: Minor Revision

Reviewer #2: - Line 51 should be ‘practices’

- Reference 14 does not support the statement where it is used, since it doesn’t include any assessment of vector competence. Reference 15 is appropriate but the sentence should read ‘more competent for T. congolense’, since it was only this species that was assessed.

- Line 95-96 check grammar

- What is already known about the habitat preferences or predictors of brevipalpis and austeni presence should be stated in the intro. There is literature on this that is cited later, e.g. ref 18, 28, 39 but this should be mentioned in the introduction and the specific novelty of this study identified.

- Lines 128-129 The Leak book, in its entirety, is an odd reference to use here. The more recent and specific literature on this topic should be cited, e.g. Hargrove et al. 2012. Also applies to line 541

- Lines 130-133 States that an AW-IPM strategy that includes an SIT component is required. Whilst an AW-IPW is clearly required, SIT is not the only option and the wording of this sentence should be edited to reflect that.

- Line 133-135 Reference 22 should come at the end of the first part of the sentence.

- Line 153-155 This sentence is rather vague and it isn’t clear whether it is stating an objective of the study or simply commenting on the potential use of the distribution maps in the future. Suggest remove and instead add a sentence clearly stating the objective of this study.

- Line 193 – does this mean there were seven sachets per trap?

- Line 260-261 Gridded livestock data – the version should be stated and appropriate reference included. World Database on Protected Areas should be referenced appropriately.

- Lines 316 to 353 I wonder if this whole section would be better presented in a table or a figure.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: This is a technical report about “A distribution model for Glossina brevipalpis and Glossina austeni in Southern Mozambique, Eswatini and South Africa for enhanced area-wide integrated pest management approaches”.

The paper is clear and very well written, and gives insight into the importance of the development of habitat suitability maps, and an assessment of the factors that regulate the presence or absence of the targeted species for the successful implementation of an AW-IPM programme, especially those that include an SIT component. The materials and methods are clearly indicated and the results reflect this. The results are also adequately discussed.

It is recommended that the manuscript be accepted for publication.

Some minor errors and modifications are suggested here below.

Materials and methods

Line 165: add “,” after “In Eswatini”

Lines 170 – 172: The fig 1 shows tsetse apparent densities and could be announced in the results section. May be it will be better to designed a figure which showing only the study area without the tsetse densities.

Line 190: “are” must be added after “incorporated”?

Lines 196 – 199: the authors indicated that “In total 160 H-traps were deployed for a minimum of 19 and a maximum of 2313 trapping days. Flies were collected from the traps and the traps serviced (clearing of vegetation, odour replacement, replace the traps when the colours are faded etc.) every 14 days.”

Generally, for just tsetse sampling for presence/absence and abundance evaluation, around 3 days of traps deployment is enough but in this study, the trap was kept until 2313 trapping days. It seem to be a tsetse control program where traps were deployed for monitoring, the authors must notify that in the methodology section.

Line 229: what means “AD”? …… add “apparent density (AD)”

Line 231: add “is” before “< 0.05”

Line 299: add “,” after “derived index”

Results

Line 317: put space after “±” in the sentence “(2.14 ±5.4) in MP. However, the lower mean AD (0.08 ±0.2)”. The same correction is necessary in the rest of the result section.

Line 321: delete the space between “(�x” in the sentence “followed by shrub savannah (�x AD of 6.46 ±7.9)”. The same correction is necessary in the rest of the result section.

Line 336: add “,” after “In Eswatini”

Discussion

Line 544: add “,” after “In 2007”

References

Line 600: replace “van” by “Van”

Reviewer #2: This paper presents a distribution model for G. austeni and G. brevipalpis for the tsetse belt that covers parts of South Africa, Mozambique and Eswatini. The novelty of the work is that it uses data collected in all three countries to look at area-wide distribution to assist development of regional tsetse control plans and will provide a valuable tool for this purpose.

Weaknesses – The study does not address a new question or describe a novel approach, although it is a useful example of using regional distribution modelling to inform control. The MaxEnt approach used, whilst commonly used for predicting the probability of presence of vectors, uses presence only data inputs. Other approaches could have been considered to make the most of the abundance data collected. For several aspects of the methodology, the level of detail provided is not sufficient to fully understand what has been done (see specific comments). The limitations of the approach are not discussed. The clarity of writing could be improved in places (see specific comments).

Reviewer #3: Comments on PNTD-D-21-00569

This paper uses entomological data on captures of the two main tsetse vectors of african trypanosomes in the southern Africa region, in order to develop prediction maps and identify habitat suitability for tsetse presence/absence. These information are key, if not essential to the development of tsetse control programmes. The ms is of very good quality, and is of help and relevance.

Majors comments

The authors should add information on the contraint due to AAT which is absent here : what are the prevalences ? costs associated ? etc., any information would help. The reader understands that the initiative comes from South Africa where there are control programmes on-going, but how is it preceived in Mozambique and Eswatini ? I appreciate this goes a bit beyond the purely scientific aspcet of the paper, but it would certainly help also.

Minor comments

Introduction, line 76 : « and they infest about 10 million km² in sub-Saharan Africa » : do you really believe this ? ref 2 is not appropriate here, and may be certainly cited elsewhere in the text. But you may rather write « are reported to infest », or include some nuance here, as you are well placed to know what you are speaking about…

Introduction, line 79-80 : please include a ref for HAT, since you mention two diseases, but only give ref for the animal one. In addition, speaking about the human disease, you may include an impact more related to health than to economy…

Introduction, line 89 : having written Trypanosoma in full a first time here, you may replace it by « T. » on all other occurrences (l. 89, 90, 92 ? etc).

Introduction, lines 130-132 : « The establishment of a tsetse-free zone in southern Africa would be a more sustainable solution to the nagana problem, but would require an AW-IPM strategy that includes an SIT component ». Although the beginning of your statement is correct, please end it by something less subjective, and more appropriate. I don’t think SIT is the only tool that can lead to tsetse eradication, especially in this southern area of tsetse distribution where tsetse have also been eradicated from neighbouring countries by aerial spraying, correct me if I am wrong ?

Discussion, lines 428-430 : « A sound understanding of the potential distribution of targeted tsetse fly species will be essential for the successful implementation of an AW-IPM programme, especially those that include an SIT component ». Not only I agree here, but please be more global because this « sound understanding » is essential, if not mandatory, for ANY control programme, again yes for those which include an SIT component, but not only for them…

Discussion lines 506-508 : « Therefore, the current model predicted a smaller tsetse fly infested area than previous models. This may be due to model refinement, changes in the

habitat as well as the apparent success of the current tsetse control actions in the area. » may be you could expand a bit here, to help the reader’s understanding. Why those « changes in habitat », what would be the cause, e.g. human growth, habitat destruction, why not even climate change, I am sure you know better than me.

Discussion line 510-511 : « an area suspected to be free of tsetse following a reduction in cattle and wildlife numbers », the reader may want to understand why is that so ? I mean why a reduction in cattle and wildlife numbers?

--------------------

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

28 Sep 2021

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers_final.docx

Click here for additional data file.

9 Nov 2021

Dear Dr De Beer,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'A distribution model for Glossina brevipalpis and Glossina austeni in Southern Mozambique, Eswatini and South Africa for enhanced area-wide integrated pest management approaches' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Marc Choisy

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Anthony Papenfuss

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************************************************

20 Nov 2021

Dear Dr de Beer,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "A distribution model for Glossina brevipalpis and Glossina austeni in Southern Mozambique, Eswatini and South Africa for enhanced area-wide integrated pest management approaches," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Editorial, Viewpoint, Symposium, Review, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript will be published online unless you opted out of this process. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases